Thx for that link, very much appreciated....downloading now.......thank god I have UVerse.

Geez, all the pics were shot by 5d mark ii! It has been confirmed! A Canon fanboy did this and posted them to a Nikon forum, then he hided in shadow while hearing all the compliments about how good the D800 is from all Nikon users!

Thx for that link, very much appreciated....downloading now.......thank god I have UVerse.

Geez, all the pics were shot by 5d mark ii! It has been confirmed! A Canon fanboy did this and posted them to a Nikon forum, then he hided in shadow while hearing all the compliments about how good the D800 is from all Nikon users!

The sensors I tested were of the same generation and of about the same QE.

That's not true at all. The G12 has an extremely advanced sensor that has a QE of 55% the 5D has a QE of 25%. That's more than a stop of difference. You're comparing stone age technology to the space shuttle.

I think the problem with your test is that you have to account for the number of t/stops in each camera's respective lens. If you actually shot the images above at the same f/stop, shutter speed and iso and didn't just try to get the exposure the same, then most likley the lens you were using transmitted twice as much light onto your 5D as the lens on the G12 due to the quality of the glass.

In any case. The point is that while it is possible to make a 300 megapixel monster of a camera with 55% quantum efficiency, they haven't done so. My guess is that the cost of scaling up the G12 sensor makes it not cost effective.

I'm positive that Canon has the technology to make a camera that has 36 mp and performs better than the D3s in low light and dynamic range. Unfortunately what is most likley going on is that they realize that such a camera would end up costing more more than creating 2 seperate bodies, one for resolution and one for low light.

It actually doesn't matter whether Canon has that kind of technology or not, nobody denies that Canon has excellent R&D in this industry.

It just doesn't mean anything to end-users if Canon don't put the technology in their products. Someone mentioned Canon is a conservative company which I totally agree.

Canon can still maintain their sales figure ahead anybody else just because there's no company like Apple in this industry.

IMO, Nikon focus on how to make better DSLRs and Canon focus on how to sell more DSLRs .

I can say after seeing the D800 in Yokohama (at CP+) yesterday, the rumors of the 45MP 5DX had better be true. Nikon has a clear winner on their hands from what I can tell after playing with the camera. As a mainly studio photographer, the D800 really appealed to me. The images I shot with it were nothing short of amazing! I was blown away by the detail I saw on the camera's LCD, so I can imagine how great they would look once I got them into Aperture or Lightroom. I really hoping Canon answers back with this 45MP beast. 2012 is going to be an interesting year for photographers for sure. I was considering upgrading to a Leica S2, but if Canon and Nikon can produce similar or better image quality in a camera priced at a fourth the cost, Leica just lost their entire S2 market.

On another note, I also had the opportunity to play with the Canon 1DX, but since it's off topic here, I will post my thoughts about it on another forum.

I don't like the idea of a 45MP beast to be honest. The images are from D800 do look superb, but I can see a lot of potential buyers are worry about the file size, the storage, the processing time etc. If Canon put a 45mp on the market, these problems can become more serious. As a result, those buyers will go toward to D800 straight away, because the D800 suddenly becomes a more balanced camera for them. And I don't think the high ISO level of a 45MP camera can match the D800.

If Canon are into high MP beast, I hope they can release a similar MP as the D800, let the IQ decides which one is better.

I am curious as what it looks like extended. I hate the new hood, looks like the 24-105 and it leaks light like crazy. Also the current hood doesn't let you see the extended lens, which looks horrible...

Another thing that astonished me was that all sample shots were made at Auto WB setting. If you look on samples of other recently released models (Nikon's for example), you'll be able to see that WB of those was set manually to some XXXX Kelvin value.

If these 1D X examples are straight from the camera it means that it becomes much easier to handle colors and easier to post-process (or post-processing might be not even needed for some areas of photography). WB might have been configured in-camera though, as Canon's added some editing functions inside of it

It seems Canon always release their sample pics straight from the camera, but Nikon's pics are usually from their NX software.Just hope the new 5D will get the similar feature

Check the second protrait's background noise, not as good as I expected.

the second one sucks.... it´s not very sharp either. not a good example imho.

Exactly~How come they can use this as the offical sample!! And the model is not as pretty as Nikon's

Here's a Nikon D4 image example shot at ISO 100 and it's not even close for me to those ISO 400 / 800 examples from 1D X taking into account look and feel of the images. I know it depends on personal taste, but I don't think ISO is the only thing we should pay attention to.

The ISO 1600 image is blurry and it looks like a shot with focus-error (may be front-focus due to recomposing after focus lock, for instance), however if you make it smaller it looks fine: resized sample of ISO 1600 shot and the grainy background even at 100% crop looks almost the same as in ISO 100 shot above made on D4.